Reasons why infinity hasn't been implemented into modern math

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter epkid08
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinity
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
66 replies · 15K views
What I meant to say, and I apologize if this was actually unclear, is that sometimes the currently accepted definition is not the final word in the definition. Perhaps a better, more useful definition is possible. I think I'm done with this thread.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To be fair, there are also uses (convergence of infinite products, for example) where 0 is not considered a finite number. But the usual definition of finite number, to me, is "between two integers" which of course includes 0.
 
csprof2000 said:
What I meant to say, and I apologize if this was actually unclear, is that sometimes the currently accepted definition is not the final word in the definition.
Final word??
THIS is what you actually said:
How can you call 0 finite?

Have you ever given it any thought, or are you just parroting conventional wisdom?
This is very clear. Here, you are advocating the ideas that:
1. It is FALSE to call 0 a finite number
and
2. That the evil "establishment" somehow have brainwashed people into thinking that 0 might be a finite number.

There is nothing ambiguous in what you wrote, and your last post is just a shameful cop-out.
Perhaps a better, more useful definition is possible.
As in your previous empty blather?
I think I'm done with this thread.
how considerate of you.
 
This is the most bipolar thread I've ever seen, intensely funny and depressing. Everyone knows more about math than the mathematicians. Especially CS people (no offense to those who actually take the time to understand the concepts they are abusing, if you exist). The last time I read a post by CSProf he was trying to convince me that the reals are countable!
 
Hasn't people yet learned that mathematics is not science and we somehow have "arbitrary definitions"?

Do they know the definition of what definition is?

I think we defined things way they are because... because... damn I cannot remember. But I am sure there's a reason! And I am sure they will keep discovering reasons why it should be wrong! [/sarcasm]
 
I suggest that we adopt the following rule:
[tex]\frac{\Infinity}{\Infintity}=1[/tex]
 
You mean as in

3237+ 2343= 1

213/234= 1

e3243= 1?

Certainly would simplify arithmetic!